Before You Inject Those 'Peptides!...'

Until we see the day that the FDA is dismantled and replaced by a number of competing, credible private watchdog groups, standards bodies, or something like a Consumers Union or Underwriters Laboratories, it will be what practically everyone relies upon for guidance about the safety and efficacy of drugs.

This is part of why having a single government agency is so dangerous to your health: It's a single point of failure that can be made to fail by politicians -- as it is doing so today under Donald Trump, through his reckless appointment of Bobby Kennedy, Jr. as the head of the HHS.

Case in point: Kennedy is working to give the FDA's imprimatur to a number of fashionable nostrums:

RFK Jr is trying to get 14 peptides, without data on safety or efficacy, licensed and approved by FDA. His favorite is BPC-157. "Only three small human studies of BPC-157 exist, for instance, the largest of which is a telephone survey of 16 people who received an injection of the drug for knee pain, and which was published in a third-tier journal, Alternative Therapies."

Regulars here will know that I am both an advocate of one's freedom to use oneself as a guinea pig if one wants and a proponent of making informed decisions about such things.

So it is that, since "peptides" are all the rage these days, I was glad to see Derek Lowe, a research chemist, write about this fad and how dangerous it can be.

After first giving a good general introduction to the scientific meaning of the term peptide in his trademark relatable and humorous way, Lowe gets into the nitty-gritty of using them as therapies, including a discussion of a treatment that is often abused:

And there are going to be plenty of cases where yes, Peptide X sure does do that thing you're interested in, but it turns out that you can't do That Thing without doing other things that you are surely not interested in. A number of "peptides of abuse" these days, for example, seem to be targeting human growth hormone pathways and associated ones, so let's use that as an example. The pitch is often something like "Here's the signal your body uses to build muscle! Take it directly and get going today!", and with HGH there's also been a longstanding subculture that treats it as a Fountain of Youth signal of some kind. "Replenish your growth hormone levels", the idea is, "and dial back the biological clock!"

But growth hormone (and I shouldn't have to say this) is powerful stuff, and it doesn't just go tell your muscles to swell up. It affects bone tissue and many other tissues as well. I would invite anyone looking to maximize their growth hormone levels to look up a condition called acromegaly, which is what you get when your body keeps on making more growth hormone than you strictly need. Bones in the hands, feet, and head enlarge, and you get all sorts of side effects like joint pain, high blood pressure, type II diabetes, and other things that are probably not mentioned in the peptide supplier's brochure.

Excess growth hormone also increases the risk of some types of cancer... [bold added]

Lowe also notably gets into that fave of Bobby K Junior's, "BPC-157."

Lowe ends with his defense of the FDA, which I would heavily qualify as I did at the beginning of this post. To the extent that so many people rely on the FDA for information about drug efficacy and safety in the world as it is today, though, he is spot on.

Trump's appointment of Kennedy is dangerous for that reason and, in my view, is a reason we would work to build strong, competing, non-governmental institutions that inform the public about drug safety and efficacy.

-- CAV

Somin on Citizenship Reform

Ilya Somin writes provocatively on citizenship reform at The Volokh Conspiracy.

I found his piece worthwhile because, as he does, I oppose Trump's effort to oppose birthright citizenship, although I have long thought the United States needs immigration and citizenship reform.

Widespread confusion about the nature of civil rights vs. individual rights muddies this debate, as I noted years ago:

[I]t reminds me of a distinction Leonard Peikoff drew on his radio show some time ago between civil rights -- which belong to the citizens of a country and pertain to their participation in its government and legal system -- and individual rights -- which belong to anyone in a society. An example of a civil right would be the right to vote. Freedom of speech would be an example of an individual right (that a proper government would guard for its citizens).

The distinction is interesting to me because I suspect that in addition to the massive confusion there already is among the public about the nature of individual rights (e.g., from the philosophical roots of the concept to their very nature, as evidenced by the plethora of ersatz "rights," like medical care), there is further confusion about the distinction mentioned above. The most glaring instance I can think of where this confusion hampers intelligent debate is in the immigration debate, and specifically when the very idea of open immigration is equated with treating all comers as full citizens. [bold added]

Somin seems to have such a distinction in mind when he proposes (1) changing the ambit of citizenship to not include voting, and (2) making participation in the government, such as by voting, contingent on competence and revocable on such grounds as insurrection:

... In an ideal system, restrictions on voting and office-holding would be based on competence and (in some cases) there might be exclusions based on a demonstrated danger to liberal democratic institutions (as with Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court wrongly gutted, to a large extent). We already have some competence-based constraints on the franchise, such as excluding children, some convicts, and immigrants who cannot pass a civics test most native-born Americans would fail if they had to take it without studying.

...

... the ideal political system would have a strong presumption against restrictions on migration, while also imposing competence-based constraints on voting rights and office-holding...

Somin also argues for restricted access to welfare benefits, which I can only advocate as a stopgap measure until the full repeal of the welfare state, as I have argued before.

I have not thought deeply about this nor am I a legal scholar, but I like these ideas and agree with Somin that, in the meantime, "Birthright citizenship [is] a second-best policy."

-- CAV

Freedom Four

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. "Killing Section 230 Would End Our Free Internet," by Agustina Vergara Cid (The Orange County Register):

The internet is far from perfect, however, and truly appalling and illegal things happen there. But Section 230 doesn't protect platforms from federal criminal law violations, the promotion or facilitation of sex trafficking, or intellectual property violations. Individual users can be held liable for their own behavior -- as in the case of defamation. It's not that this law takes liability away altogether, it just shifts liability away from the platform and back to the person who actually posted the content.

750 words/3 minutes

2. "Colleges Must Give Up Federal Funding to Achieve True Intellectual Freedom," by Onkar Ghate and Sam Weaver (The Hill, 2025):

Even in the best-case scenario, when federal bureaucrats try to proceed conscientiously, such a system creates increased conformity within an academic field. The bureaucrats will tend to defer to recognized experts in the field, which means established theories and methodologies are much more likely to receive federal support, making it difficult for intellectual minorities and innovators to compete. This plays out across the entire university, which is strongly incentivized to hire researchers likely to receive federal grants.

600 words/2 minute

3. "How Government Attempts to Reduce Health Spending Can Paradoxically Raise Health Costs," by Paul Hsieh (Forbes):

A more long-term answer would be to encourage the growth of free-market clinics such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, that offer price transparency and work outside the traditional insurance system to provide quality care at lower cost. In the current heavily regulated US medical system, market-based reforms cannot fully address the problem -- but they would be a step in the right direction of rational pricing of medical services and procedures.

1000 words/4 minutes

4. "There Is No Imminent Infectious Disease Crisis at the Border," by Amesh Adalja and Agustina Vergara Cid (STAT):

Paradoxically, the administration whose health secretary wants to institute a "pause" on infectious disease research and expresses doubt regarding the germ theory of disease is now going to invoke infectious diseases as a threat.

700 words/2 minutes

-- CAV

Blind Spots Are Funny Things

A couple of posts by advice columnist Annie Lane that I would say fall under the umbrella of communicate clearly with your loved ones each reminded me of humorous interactions I have had with my wife and her family, and of why I regularly check a small list of advice columnists each week.

In the first of these, it would appear that an athlete has met his soulmate in the person of a couch potato, and asks, point-blank, Is it possible to build a lasting relationship when your passions and daily habits are so different, or is this a sign that we're not meant for each other?

Lane's answer is spot-on, although not something I ever needed to hear from someone else. My wife and I have always been open and clear with each other, and we each have tastes and pursuits not in common with the other that we're happy to see each other pursue, even as we find the other's choice baffling.

For example, my wife and her dad just love talking about real estate, and this interest extends to her looking at house listings as a kind of hobby. I enjoy looking at the events of the day from a philosophical perspective, and learned early in our relationship that she's apolitical and simply does not enjoy philosophical discussions. No big deal: I started a blog and have friends I can share that interest with.

Her interest in residential real estate became apparent to me later and over time, coming to a head in my bemusement some time around a move we had to make.

We've picked a place already. Why does she keep going on about this? I wondered, with a side of Oh God! I don't want to move again what is this? So I brought it up, learned that it was a kind of recreation for her, and was able to establish that I liked going into that only when necessary: "I find real estate about as interesting as you find philosophy." I told her.

Boundary established. She and her dad can be real estate buddies and I can leave the house talk to the bare minimum.

That communication issue was a non-issue for me. The one Annie Lane addressed in the second letter I found baffled me in the moment, but I solved it by accident.

In this post, someone is having trouble with wanting to establish different boundaries with her in-laws than her husband was used to. Her problem reminded me in part of an issue I had when my in-laws moved closer to us a few years ago:

There are also frequent "drop-ins." His parents live only 15 minutes away, and while I appreciate that they want to spend time together, there have been moments when they've shown up without calling first. I try to be gracious, but sometimes it feels like our home isn't fully our own. [bold added]

My case had the further complication that we each had keys to each others' homes to facilitate taking care of things when one family or the other was out of town.

I already was fumbling around for a polite way to ask my in-laws to give me notice before coming over for any reason when, one day, a trip by my father-in-law to return something took care of that for me.

I was at home alone mid-day, and nearly jumped out of my skin when I saw someone was in my house, that someone being my father-in-law.

"Please don't do that!" I blurted out spontaneously. "I nearly had a heart attack!"

Now, they always call ahead, and I feel silly for not having just asked in the first place.

The issue in the letter is a little bit different, but I like her answer, and it's in an area I'm a little "blind" in. I might have used similar advice were it not for that encounter, either by searching advice column archives or asking.

We can't always know our own blind spots, but it is possible to mitigate them by learning from the problems, big and small, that others face.

-- CAV

Florida Man vs. Right to Contract

Quick question: When is it proper for the government to tell a private employer whom he can hire, and how?

1. Any time that employer discriminates for or against anyone for reasons unrelated to fitness for the job as advertised, or
2. Never, because the purpose of government is to protect individual rights, including the right to contract.

Hint: Whatever other considerations an employer might have are moral matters, and an employer will bear the rewards or consequences (monetary or not) of those additional considerations.

The correct answer -- which apparently would come as a surprise to about 99% of today's government officials -- is 2.

The government has no business forcing employers to have hiring quotas or not to have them.

Florida is making the second mistake, in a knee-jerk reaction to decades of DEI/"corporate responsibility"/ESG:

The National Football League won't stop enforcing its "Rooney Rule" in the face of Florida's threats of possible legal action over the longstanding diversity hiring practice, league Commissioner Roger Goodell said Tuesday.

Speaking at the NFL's annual meeting in Phoenix, Goodell said the league will "engage" with Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who last week warned the Rooney Rule and other similar hiring policies are "illegal" under Florida's civil rights laws. But Goodell maintained the NFL believes its rule is "consistent" with state laws and will continue to be used to help "bring in the best talent."

The "Rooney Rule" is an effort by the NFL, a private employer, to help individuals who are not white males get into coaching jobs.

Whatever its moral status -- or anyone's opinion about whether it's necessary or the right way to give such candidates a fair hearing -- it's up to the owners of the NFL whom they hire and how they go about doing so. It would be wrong for the government to force them to have such a rule (if they didn't already) for the same reason it is attempting to force them not to do so now.

This is not the first time Florida's conservative Governor, Ron DeSantis, has shown that he's more of a fascist than a proponent of free markets. During the pandemic, he made exactly the same kind of mistake regarding vaccine "mandates" when he threatened cruise lines for asking their passengers to vaccinate before cruises (!):

[DeSantis] has no more right than the CDC to impose a vaccination policy on a cruise line. Do not be fooled by the fact that his position differs in concrete detail from the one favored by the left.

It is interesting to note that after decades of the left "mandating" things via improper government, many people seem to have forgotten the fundamental difference between a business owner setting policy and the government doing it for him.

-- CAV

One Snake-Oil Vendor Calls out Another

The editorial board of the New York Post does a yeoman's job of totting up the many king-like past transgressions of Democrat Presidents against the Republic, in the wake of the most recent protests against Donald Trump.

A sample:

Obama lost, often at the Supreme Court. That didn't stop him.

Nor did it stop President Joe Biden, who became infamous for ignoring Supreme Court decisions.

When the Supreme Court said that extending a COVID-era moratorium on evictions would be unconstitutional, Biden just did it anyway.

The same when the Supremes told Biden he lacked the power to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt.

Democrats didn't protest against Biden acting like a king. In fact, they encouraged him to go even further.

The protestors, whose demonstrations notably included anti-American chants and flew flags of hostile regimes, well deserved to be called out for their inconsistencies.

On top of that, Americans are fairly warned:

So when it comes to "no kings," Dems aren't just accusing Trump -- they're falsifying their own history.

The truth is that Democrats cheer authoritarian behavior -- as long as they're in charge.

Let them back into power, and they'll prove it once again.

It is too bad that that is essentially the whole message, which evades the similar damage Donald Trump does to our Republic every day.

When two men sell poisonous snake oil, the fact that one calls out the other does not mean his product is any better, and yet that is the gist of this editorial.

In better days, the writers would be well aware of and open about the similarity, and of the alternative of working to free our nation from any and all tyrants. They would exhort their side to do better. The Founders, many Christian, for example, were well aware of the tyranny of religious authority -- and yet they did not squabble among themselves as to which religion to make official. They deprived all religions of secular power instead.

Today, there is no such exhortation, but to not "let them back into power," at a time when universal suffrage is under blatant attack and the leader being protested against openly undermines the legitimacy of past elections while working to rig future ones. This is dangerously close to endorsing a dictatorship, as, surely, one would keep the President's political enemies out of power, as if they all deserve to be.

The solution to the problem of a too-powerful Presidency isn't to stick with the proverbial devil you know or to make that devil even more powerful, but to work to exorcise imperial power from the Presidency so neither "side" can abuse it.

-- CAV

Good News/Bad News From a General

The good news/bad news about Iran overall is, of course, that we have a President willing to fight it -- but who may be too impulsive and incompetent to prosecute it to the right conclusion: a complete decimation of Iran's ability to harm our interests.

That latter emphatically includes the end of its current regime.

The crisis caused by Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz epitomizes Trump's unfitness to lead this war, given that he plainly failed to account for that very possibility upon launching.

Fortunately, others have gamed out this scenario and, having done so, may yet save Trump's bacon. RealClear Politics summarizes an interview with a retired general on this point:

Retired Gen. Frank McKenzie, the former commander of U.S. Central Command, told CBS's "Face The Nation" that after years of preparation, after one month, the campaign against Iran is "further along than we would have expected to be at this point, in all the simulations that I've seen."

"This is not back-of-the-envelope calculations. These are things we've been working on for many years," he said. [bold added]

That's the good news. The bad follows in the very next paragraph:

"I believe that they will break. I believe that they will come to terms," he said. "I'll be honest with you. I've simulated this many years in many positions at Central Command; we're a little further along than we would have expected to be at this point in all the simulations that I've seen." [bold added]

In other words, for all our tactical superiority, we are crippled by an institutional strategic blindness to the nature of our opponent that feeds straight in to Trump's naive obsession with "making a deal" at all costs.

We fought World War II and prevailed in the Cold War against opponents that at least had a desire to live in this world. Those opponents were, in that respect, paragons of rationality compared to this foe. Unlike with them, there is no basis at all for negotiating with Iran's regime.

The current regime are religious fanatics for whom criminal bargains -- much less good faith negotiations for mutual benefit in the future -- are an alien concept, and who will lie through their teeth, if doing so will keep them in power, so they can regroup and try to kill us again another day.

-- CAV